Talk:Lists of atheists/Archive 3

Literature, arts and entertainment
Rather than revert a reversion of a reversion, I thought I'd pause and seek consensus on the question of whether the recently consolidated Arts, entertainment and literature category ought to be broken back down. I contend that it is too broad. The category currently encompasses such diverse professions as sports, journalism, literature, fashion design, and music. I believe this broadness makes the list less useful to readers, who might be researching atheists in specific areas, and will not be well-served by this hodge-podge category. "Arts" is certainly ambiguous, but "Literature" and "Entertainment" are less so, and ought to be treated separately. What does everyone think? 69.23.115.197 06:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. In this case, I would be a "splitter" rather than a "lumper."  logologist|Talk 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should be broken into "Arts and literature" and "Entertainment". That would probably also require a case-by-case basis though; I'm sure if Britney Spears were an atheist, she'd belong in the "Entertainment" section; classical composers would belong in "Arts". They would both, of course, technically be "musicians". In between would be Frank Zappa, who was both an artist and an entertainer (thought I think he would better belong in "Arts"). --Switch 12:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree, in this case I'm a "splitter" as well. The old "Arts and literature" and "Entertainment" were not ideal but probably the best we could do. BTW, take the point about Zappa's cross-over status but reckon the majority view would lean towards "Entertainment" for him. If a few of his works ever make it into the Penguin Guide to Classical then maybe I'd go "Arts"...! Cheers, Ian Rose 23:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there's no chance a jazz composer will ever be in certain publications, simply for the fat that jazz is not classical by definition. But as for the separation, I suggest either a separation of songwriters/performers, or a simple old/new. --Switch 04:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I shall allow no such thing. It is completely open to interpretation and elitism by general consensus, which is a lack of objective reasoning due to subjectivity - personal preference is a nonissue. Verdi was not considered art at one point, yet he is now. The doubt of differences between jazz composers and classical composers is obvious difference between this, and one can merely refer to the wikipedia entry "highbrow", as well as "lowbrow" and "kitsch" to see how much of a lack of consensus there actually is on defining what is art. If one is going to include musicians, all musicians must be included. I will accept only if the category is extremely specific so as to avoid any debate of "art" and "non-art". In this case, every primary career of the persons in that category must have its own category. George Carlin would be under "Comedians", Rimsky-Korsakov would be under "Composers", Ayn Rand would be under "Authors" (and possibly "Philosophers" as well). --68.91.88.159 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoever you are (ever thought of being a name, not a number?!) you'll garner far more respect by avoiding telling your fellow editors what you will and won't accept, and instead proposing alternate solutions to a perceived issue. Nor will threats of reverting changes when you don't have consensus on your side help your cause. Most people who have responded in this section contend that 'Arts, Literature and Entertainment' is too broad a category. No-one has suggested that the former 'Arts and literature' and 'Entertainment' sections were perfect, but they did at least break down the overall list of atheists. If you'd like to propose an alternate split, perhaps 'Musicians' (including pop, classical, jazz, et al), 'Authors', 'Visual artists', or whatever, then we can all discuss and hopefully come to a satisfactory agreement. Your current 'solution' of one super-category is hardly satisfactory, nor is your belligerent attitude about it. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Creating a colossal super-category defeats the purpose of having categories at all.  logologist|Talk 07:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I shall split the categories up into specifics, then. You can't expect me to treat your case with respect when you have given no objective reasoning to do so, aside from not liking it and heeding mere convention. "Art" is subjective, and having an "entertainment" section seperate from "art" is subjectively elitist with no grounds for being so. You have yet to address that point. Until you can disprove my argument, I will stand by my case indefinitely. Objectivity does not allow for democracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.91.88.159 (talk • contribs) 21:12, November 11, 2006 (UTC).
 * Ho-hum. While it may be academic now, for the record, no-one above rejected the 'Arts, Literature and Entertainment' category because they 'don't like it' but because it was too broad and meaningless. Your bit about 'elitism' was pummelling a straw man, no-one argued for keeping Arts and Entertainment separate on that basis. You've evidently come to the same conclusion as the rest of us re. breaking up the categories and high time too. By the way, friendly advice for the future, you can 'stand by your case' as indefinitely as you like but at the end of the day, if you can't abide the consensus you must try to win hearts and minds on the talk page and gain a new consensus – your case won't be worth much otherwise. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you do, 68.91.88.159, please respect consensus.

Here's a proposal for categories, based in part on List of notable brain tumor patients, which is a featured list:


 * 1) Activists and educators
 * 2) Business
 * 3) Film, television and radio
 * 4) Music
 * 5) Philosophy
 * 6) Politics and law
 * 7) Science and medicine
 * 8) Sports
 * 9) Visual arts
 * 10) Writing

All, please tell me what you think. 69.23.115.197 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That is fine, but I am splitting it up in a way that is a bit more specific. You can alter it to your specifications aftrer that if it's too specific. This is 68.91.88.159 and the message posted recently was my doing as well. I can respect consensus as long as consensus is objective. The standard language in Opera was Italian for quite some time, and that was only because of "consensus" that it was the ideal language to write in. I use that example because the nature of agreement proves very little. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.91.88.159 (talk • contribs) 21:32, November 11, 2006 (UTC).


 * I suggest breaking the list into every specific occupation a person listed holds, as anything else would be subjective. Who is to say what is or is not a sport? The "official" classifications are arbitrary, and distinctions between games, sports, and arts are inherently subjective. Rappers can be considered musicians or poets, or distinct from both. Comedians can be writers, activists, educators, physicians, and any number of other professions. Where does art stop being "visual"? What about comic books? Alex Ross and Frank Miller (comics) are both writers and visual artists. Where does the line fall between politics, philosophy and activism? Marx was involved in politics, was a philosopher and was an activist.
 * I hope my irony wasn't missed; the point is, no division of occupations can ever be entirely free from subjectivity, and will ultimately be reached by consensus. Helping to clean up is great; decreeing that you will not "allow" editors to arrange the list in the way they agree is best is not. --Switch 10:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well put, Switch. And thanks for your proposal, 69.23.115.197 (be great to see you as a name too, by the way). This looks better than before with the super-cat of 'Arts, Literature and Entertainment' and basing it on an FA list helps. Obviously it's been implemented now but, more importantly, it looks like we have some agreement on it. If anyone out there has any serious issues with the organisation of this page now, let them discuss it here. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

James D. Watson
The Wikipedia articles states that Watson is "an outspoken atheist." Does anyone know of an authoritative source for this? Would anyone, perhaps, know how to contact him in order to get it directly from the horse's mouth? logologist|Talk 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Such would be original research, and the information from such contact would also be unverified, by Wikipedia's standards. Both are unacceptable. If a reputable source describes Watson as an atheist or, even better, if a quote is found in which he says he's an atheist or doesn't believe in a God, then that would be acceptable. 69.23.115.197 18:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletions of Steven Weinberg and James D. Watson and Friedrich Nietzsche
by User:69.23.115.197 seem to me groundless. Their status as atheists appears well documented at www.positiveatheism.com. logologist|Talk 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that their status as atheists is well documented at positiveatheism.com. Quotes from James D. Watson can be found here. Two of the quotes are of unknown source, which makes them unacceptable. In neither of the remaining quotes does he say he is an atheist, or say that he does not believe in God.


 * I surveyed all of the quotes from Weinberg. In none of these quotes does he say he is an atheist, or that he does not believe in God. I may have missed something here. If you find any instances in which either of these scientists identifies himself as an atheist or says he does not believe in God, please bring them to my attention. I will be glad to be corrected. 69.23.115.197 18:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you make of Weinberg's statement to Jonathan Miller, at the end of The Atheism Tapes, program 2 (accessible at "Steven Weinberg," External links):
 * "I don't believe in God... the god of traditional Judaism and Christianity and Islam seems to me a terrible character. He's a god who... obsessed the degree to which people worship him and anxious to punish with the most awful torments those who didn't worship him in the right way.
 * "I... had a friend, now dead... who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief... It is corrosive of religious belief, and it's a good thing too."  logologist|Talk 21:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is definitive. I put Weinberg back in with that reference. Do you have anything like that for Watson also? Thank you. 69.23.115.197 00:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I really hope people aren't basing Nietzsche's purported atheism on "God is dead." This reflects a profound misunderstanding of his philosophy. Could the powers-that-be please delete his name from the list or provide stronger evidence for his atheism. He was a Christian apostate, no doubt, but he never claimed anything resembling atheism.

Nietzsche was an apostate AND an atheist. You can deduct it from many letters written to his sister, but also from some quotes like "if there were gods, how couldn't I be one of them" 128.135.226.238 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * People people, let's think about the burden of proof. Since everyone is born an atheist shouldn't the burden of proof be on those that claim certain people aren't atheists? Since atheists have a negative position, a lack of a belief, shouldn't one assume that someone is an atheist unless otherwise proven?
 * It's kind of like saying that someone is a capitalist unless that person denied being one because we live in a society where capitalism is the dominant influence on our economic system. --80.56.36.253 09:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. The majority of the world's people are theists. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim; in this case, the article is making the positive claim that people listed are atheists. As this makes them a minority, it cannot be assumed for all unless they have specifically stated otherwise. It is instead assumed for none unless they have stated otherwise.
 * Furthermore, some people define atheism differently than others. Some limit the meaning to strong atheism, while others use the broader meaning of weak atheism. And to some people, it would be an insult. We can't list a living person who has not stated their atheist views, because that would violate the policies for biographies of living persons. ~  Swi tch  t c   g 13:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously weak atheism is atheism. Most people may be theists but all people are born without belief in gods, so they are born as atheists. Atheism is the negative position, the starting position. Minority or not, that is irrelevant. I also don't understand the 'insult' thingy. What is an insult? And if you don't want to make public claims about things certain people want to keep private, fine. But that's a different story.
 * But just remember, the definition of an atheist is not: "Someone who claims to be an atheist."--80.56.36.253 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Although true on some level this "everyone's born atheist" seems like an essentially meaningless statement or possibly a weird way to make atheism look standard despite it being a minority position. Everyone's also born ignorant, illiterate, incontinent, etc. That said I think the three people named in this section are atheists.--T. Anthony 07:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Archival
Current discussions from Novemeber were kept, all previous discussions have been archived as per archive box on top. The old archive has been reassigned to Archive 1 in accordance with Wikipedia Archival procedure. A list of rejected people can be found at here. Mkdw talk 08:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The ref for Arthur C. Clark
It seems to say the author is one Jeromy Agel in the reference down there, was this ref just not formatted correctly, was that really Clark's words? Homestarmy 13:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Adam Carolla
from http://adamradio.wordpress.com/2006/02/10/adam-with-jeff-probst-and-louis-ck/

Adam thinks that, even though he’s an atheist, we need to flood hell with all of the cool people because then hell won’t be such a bad place. Rachel says that she’s moving on to her next existence in her next life

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Carolla#Adam_on_Atheism --Philo 06:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I nominate Ann Druyan who won the Richard Dawkins Award in 2004. --Philo [[Image:Gamepad.svg|25px]] 07:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell
I removed Bertrand Russell from the list. He said the following:''As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist... None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of Homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof. Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.'' He would only have called himself an atheist at popular audiance, because they don´t understand agnosticicm and the philosophical connections of it.--Peter Holgan 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The key point is that he considered himself both an agnostic and an atheist, depending on the context. That why he's in both List of atheists and List of agnostics, where his entry is accompanied by this quote, which clarifies this nuanced self-identification. Nick Graves 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Warren Buffett
Warren Buffet has described himself as an agnostic, not an atheist. Two sources which confirm this are:

1. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/faces3.html

2. http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=649&PHPSESSID=71cdf024ed00bc1cfeaa7092bb2e05e5

If there are no objections, I shall probably remove Warren Buffett from this list within the next week or so, and also update the related entries in the 'American atheists' lists and the 'Warren Buffett' article.


 * I will remove Buffett to the List of agnostics right now. Thanks. Nick Graves 21:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reorganizing
Logologist suggested that all of these names be rearranged alphabetically or chronologically, rather than by occupation. I support rearranging alphabetically, since it will make it much easier to manage the list and avoid duplication. What does everyone else think? Nick Graves 06:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I've created confusion. My point was that some additions within the occupation lists have been out of alphabetical order.  However we do sort our certified atheists, we  probably should be consistent.  I would keep the occupational divisions but, within each, put the individuals into chronological order by year of birth, rather than alphabetically.  (The individuals are not all contemporary with each other; they span a couple of centuries of history.)  logologist|Talk 06:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've viewed a fair few featured lists and some are alphabetic only (e.g. List of Telecaster players), others alphabetic within occupation (e.g. List of notable brain tumor patients, List of HIV-positive people), others chonological within occupation (e.g. List of people with epilepsy), and others chronological only (e.g. List of major opera composers) - and some in tables, some not! The upshot is that while I've seen more alpha-within-occupation, there is bugger-all standard. What I can say after reviewing these other lists is that I don't think any are better organised or more attractive than this one. I support remaining with the occupational division (not out of bloody-mindedness after the battle had earlier but because I think it's a better to have such an abmittedly imperfect breakdown than none at all) and don't see an issue with retaining the alphabetic order within occupation. I'm not against chronological order by birthdate within occupation per se, however I think a list is simpler to follow and add to if its left-most element is what you sort by - and since all lists of people start with their name I think it makes more sense to sort by that. Cheers, Ian Rose 07:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I rather dislike the lists not ordered by ocupation; in fact, I'm considering giving the list of anarchists the same treatment this one has had, although it would be a lot of work. I personally would favour chronological organisation within the occupations - it was different being an atheist 150 years ago than it was 50 years ago, and it's different again now. -  Swi tch t 12:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand what Logologist meant now. The names were supposed to be arranged in alphabetical order within occupation, but Logologist found some that weren't. That's to be expected, as "drive-by" additions are often made at the end of a section, rather than in proper alphabetical order (We might have missed some earlier, too.). Since a lot of such additions are made without a citation, one easy way to deal with them is to just revert them as soon as they pop up. A good reference for each entry is essential if this is to get to featured list quality. I oppose rearranging chronologically, not because it wouldn't be nice, but because it will make managing the list more difficult. It's just a lot easier to shoe-horn someone in by their last name than by birthdate or deathdate. Arranging by occupation can create some problems, because so many people are more than one thing (a comedian can be an author, an author can be an activist, etc.) and a reader might not find someone listed where they expect. However, I'd just as soon see the list organized as it is now (assuming it's still in alphabetical order within occupation). Nick Graves 15:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Taken care of (for now)! Cheers, Ian Rose 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Pics
Since the conversion of all pics from 100px to 75px a couple of captions, i.e. Rimsky-Korsakov and Skłodowska-Curie, have been truncated. Suggest we go back to something closer to 100px across the board, I doubt the slightly greater size will have a huge ripple effect. Also we have too many 'Science and medicine' pics, my vote is we drop two of Feynman, Pinker or Watson, i.e. suggest Dawkins, Curie, Pauling and one other should stay. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's keep all the Nobel laureates. logologist|Talk 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to be selective about which pictures to include and excude based on notability as atheists. Then there a lot of pics would have to be dropped, i.e. Stalin is much more notable as a communist dictator and Curie is much more famous for her scientific discoveries. Very few would be notable for their atheism, it would be mainly those famous for their work in suppost of atheism, like Dawkins and Shelley. I suggest we follow one of these four options:


 * 1. No images at all
 * 2. Only images for those famous specificly for their work for atheism.
 * 3. Images of most people. Only excluding those whos atheism can be seen as little more than a footnote.
 * 4. Images of all people.

-ramz- 21:33, 17 December 2006 (CET)


 * I'd be in favor of option 2, although determining who is worthy may itself cause disagreements. Barring that, perhaps option 1 would not be unreasonable as the primary article for nearly all these people will have a photo in any case. -- Rydra Wong 20:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Valid point, ramz. Of these options I would discard 1 and 4, and concentrate on something between 2 and 3. A number of the current pics are arguably there because of the subjects' fame per se, rather than their outspoken views on atheism or the part it plays in their work. Re. the musicians, for instance, Rimsky-Korsakov may be the best-known, but not for his atheism; Numan is the most outspoken and the one for whom atheism plays the biggest part in his work. Tend to agree with ramz re. Stalin and Curie; similarly, I don't know that Carnegie, Diderot, Freud and Watson were/are outspoken or that atheism especially informs their work. One might also argue for the removal of Asimov's pic since by his own lights he came to self-identification as an atheist quite late, even if it was always implicit. I think there's some sort of case for retaining the other pics on this basis and adding a few more, e.g. Ellen Johnson, Harry Harrison, Phillip Adams, Jonathan Miller. Cheers, Ian Rose


 * I agree with Ian Rose on discarding options 1 and 4. A featured list of people ought to have some portraits, but a portrait for each would crowd the list and make it a mess.


 * I am in favor of a criterion somewhere between 2 and 3 (but closer to 2). Option 3 would crowd the list much like option 4, and we probably would not even be able to find enough appropriate images to fulfill it anyway. This is because there is no fair-use rationale for using copyrighted portraits in List of people articles. The portraits used in this article must be in the public domain, or else copyrighted portraits with a license that allows their use here.


 * I think option 2 as worded is too restrictive. I would recast it this way: Images of persons whose atheism was relevant in their public life or works. In other words, you don't have to promote atheism to be pictured, but your atheism has to be relevant to your notability. Even this criterion can be flexible--especially notable persons who happen to be atheists could be pictured, even if atheism wasn't relevant in their public life. For example, if an avowed atheists were ever to be elected president of the US (ha!), they could be pictured even if their atheism never became a public issue (ha!). And we may even opt to not picture someone even if their profession is to promote atheism, since they might be relatively obscure, despite being notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia.


 * I don't think we'll ever agree on a single criterion or set of criteria that is perfectly applicable in all cases. Such inherently subjective concerns as aesthetics will always play a role in the decision about whom to picture. Nick Graves 00:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Carl Sagan
From all his writings it's clear he doesn't believe in god; this is most apparent in Billions and Billions. Also, his wife, Ann Druyan, says this about him: "When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me-it still sometimes happens-and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions" http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-11/ann-druyan.html Profonikz 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One can be a nonbeliever and not an atheist. Did Sagan ever specifically call himself an atheist? Has an informed and impartial source called him an atheist? That's what's needed. Nick Graves 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of quotes from Sagan that are very atheistic in nature, it seems to me somewhat misinformative not to place him as atheist. Does he actually have to say "I'm an atheist" to be an atheist or "I'm an agnostic" to be an agnostic?
 * Quotes from Carl Sagan: http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_CSagan.htm
 * -ramz- 00:39, 18 December 2006 (CET)


 * I skimmed through those quotes, and nothing jumped out to me as being specifically atheistic. Can you identify one which demonstrates that Sagan was an atheist?


 * No, one does not need to say "I'm an atheist" to be an atheist. But a reliable source (preferrably the person themselves) needs to identify someone as an atheist for them to be listed here. Nick Graves 02:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it seems that he did say I'm an agnostic based on the following quotes: "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it", "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic." http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Carl_Sagan -ramz- 19:31, 3 December 2007 (CET)

possible additions
Frank Zappa and Bill Hicks were almost certainly atheists, but I can't find anything to 'prove' this, other than a bunch of anti-religious quotes, which might not qualify. I think they should be included though, can anyone help out? 203.167.235.136 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure they were both atheists. Hicks might have some evidence for him - I'll have a look - but I doubt if any solid evidence for Zappa being an atheist could be found. Anti-religious quotes do not count, as many people, including pantheists, some agnostics, and deists might be derisive of organised religion or dogma, but without being atheists. -  Swi tch t 07:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * After looking around, it still seems Zappa was an atheist, but haven't found a verifiable source. Hicks was a more interesting matter; after looking more closely, he seems to have identified as an agnostic, and was definitely spiritual if not religious - He may well still be an atheist, but I haven't been able to source it. -  Swi tch  t 09:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you find the reference and a quote substantiating Hicks' agnosticism so he can be added to List of agnostics? Thanks. Nick Graves 16:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Impartiality
Nick Graves recently removed Delius, and the reason given was that the source was "impartial". I have restored them, on the grounds that there are other links that are equally "impartial" (if being located on a website that advocates atheism qualifies for that stigma) and focusing on Delius while there are so many other examples is clearly an example of being impartial. Should all websites that are for atheists be removed, if that is the only qualifications for being "impartial"? [the preceding comment was unsigned by 68.91.89.105]


 * 68.91.89.105, the problem with using atheism-promoting websites as sources is that they have a bias toward representing as many great people as possible as atheists (in an effort to counter the stigma of atheism), and often do so with scant evidence, and sometimes with unattributed (and therefore suspect) quotes.


 * Regardless, Delius and Ligeti should not be included based on the citations earlier provided, because the quotes do not prove they are atheists. Delius can criticize Christianity and still not be an atheist. Ligeti can not believe in god and still not be an atheist. Nick Graves 15:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nick, just a point of order... I tend to agree with avoiding pro-atheist sites as the sole source of a person's supposed atheism since the impartiality of such sites is open to question, similar to a pro-gay site being the sole source of a person's alleged homsexuality. I also fully agree that one "can criticize Christianity and still not be an atheist". However I'm less convinced by the contention that one "can not believe in god and still not be an atheist" both in general and in the context of this article where, in the first line, we suggest that "An atheist is one who disbelieves in the existence of God". While we've agreed on giving precedence to those who self-identify as atheists, we also include people "if they fit the narrowest sense of the word 'atheist' (they have denied the existence of God and other deities)". Cheers, Ian Rose 00:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, Ian. Regarding your second point: As indicated by one of the footnotes, there are different levels of disbelief. It could be lack of belief, refusal to believe, or outright denial (that is, the assertion of the contrary of a belief). To not believe in god is not the same as asserting that there is no god (denying that god exists), even though both positions are a form of disbelief. The former position may or not be atheism, depending on what sense of the word one chooses to use. The latter position, however, is almost universally understood to be an atheistic view. Nick Graves 20:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you too, Nick, and what better time for us to be discussing the finer points of atheism than Christmas Day?! I think the only possible disagreement we have is how one might disbelieve in god and still not be an atheist (assuming one isn't simply ignorant). While there may be a subtle difference between 'not believing in god' and 'asserting that there is no god', by the definitions we've employed in this article both are forms of atheism. To go back to the Ligeti example, the quote used in support of his 'atheism' was far from unequivocal (and was in any case said about and not by him), i.e. "Ligeti doesn't believe in god, but he said god does a lot of things", so I have no argument with rejecting his addition to this list on that basis. My point is that if Ligeti had just said "I don't believe in god" then that should qualify him for an entry, however your statement "Ligeti can not believe in god and still not be an atheist" suggested you might not agree with that position. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, if atheism is merely not believing in god, then Ligeti would be an atheist in your example. However, not everyone accepts or uses this definition. A great many people use only the narrow definition (denial of god's existence), and would object to categorization of mere nonbelievers as atheists. Such would be the position of many of those on List of agnostics, who use or used agnosticism as a third category between atheism and theism. They might be atheists according to your definition or my definition of the word, but not according to their own.


 * English does not have an academy to officially set the meanings of words in stone for everyone. Rather, meanings of words are flexible and variegated, and become molded according to the uses of populations and subcultures. Sometimes, the great majority of English users agree on a word's meaning. Atheist is not one of those words.


 * We cannot settle the controversy between rival definitions, nor would Wikipedia be the proper place to attempt to settle the issue. Instead, a good solution is to accept people at their word when they call themselves "atheists," or to rely on informed and impartial sources who make such identifications. In other cases, we ought to rely only on the sense of the word that nearly everyone agrees is atheistic (the sense that is consistent with the narrow definition). Such an approach avoids the pitfall of putting Wikipedia editors in the position of a language academy which attempts to prescribe meanings for words.


 * If we were to make nonbelief in god a sufficient criterion for identifying someone as an atheist in this list, we would end up listing many people who reject the broad definition, and who would object to being called an atheist. I think that's a situation we ought to avoid. Nick Graves 22:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No major issue with any of that. Your edit summary for this last, i.e. treating each case on its merits, sums up the way to go. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As I was writing the edit summary, I realized I probably could have just left it at that. I'm often too wordy. I'll be working on that next year. Nick Graves 18:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Christer Fuglesang
There seems to be a small conflict of opinions regarding the nationality of astronaut Christer Fuglesang, some want it to be "Swedish-Norwegian" and some only Swedish. I myself have to say it should be Swedish since as Nick Graves pointed out both his parents were Swedish and I haven't heard that he has any Norwegian citizenship, furthermore does his wikipedia article state only Swedish. His only actual connection to Norway it that his father came from there. He attained however swedish citizenship before Christer's birth. Therefore I'm reverting his nationality to Swedish. -ramz- 02:23, 10 January 2007 (CET)

Jan Guillou
Nick Graves inqured me to provide an english translation of Jan Guillous statement in the article referenced. I'm not sure where I should post it, so for the time being I'm providing it here, If I've mistranslated some part, then please correct me.

Title: "It takes a lot to piss me off"

Relevant section:

Atheist

Today is the first of Advent, how are you celebrating?

- I am [an] atheist, but Ann-Marie and I light a candle anyway. I have dedicated "Madame Terror" to her. Since she has helped me much with [my] books, not least with this one, the latest. Much talk on and forth, I've had a lot yellings.

Same part in the original Swedish:

Ateist

I dag är det första advent, hur firar du det?

- Jag är ateist, men Ann-Marie och jag tänder ett ljus ändå. Jag har tillägnat henne "Madame Terror". För att hon hjälpt mig mycket med böcker, inte minst med denna, den senaste. Mycket snack fram och tillbaka, många utskällningar har jag fått. -ramz- 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the translation to his reference now. -ramz- 01:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

let's reexamine the meaning of atheism and a proposal
I've seen alot of people removed from this list because "just because they aren't religious doesn't mean they're atheist". The thing is, the definition of atheism is "one that has no belief in deities". This also includes agnostics. My next question is, could we merge this into an article called List of atheists and agnostics? I think it would stop this politicking of trying to find out if someone is atheist or agnostic and stop the removals. --Philo 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. That would just make the list excessively long, and people would want clarification as to who is an atheist and who is an agnostic. The introduction to the list clarifies it enough in my opinion. ~  Swi tch t 17:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The List of agnostics page is pretty darned short, so I don't think length is a big problem. I think this is a merge that should be seriously discussed; the distinction between agnosticism and atheism is often fluid or debated, with some claiming that they're mutually exclusive and others claiming that agnosticism is a subtype of atheism; merging the lists would allow us to neutrally report on who claims to be an atheist and who claims to be an agnostic, without Wikipedia itself needing to weigh in on this thorny issue. Furthermore, it would resolve many of the problematic entries, like Bertrand Russell (who claimed, in different senses, to be either an atheist or an agnostic at the same time), as well as people who said that they didn't believe in God but never specified whether they were atheists or agnostics, and people who were agnostics at one point in their lives and atheists at another (with, if the two are distinct, is probably a near-universal occurrence). -Silence 17:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is, keeping the lists separate allows us to reoprt on who is an atheist and who is an agnostic in an objective manner too, by using only reliable sources (preferably primary sources). While by my definition of the words, agnosticism and atheism are unconnected sematically (as in, an agnostic can be either an atheist or theist, and an atheist can be agnostic or not), and I would consider myself both, not everyone sees it that way, and under WP:BLP we shouldn't conflate the two. I also don't see how that would help the Russel issue in any way; if we had the two lists together, we'd have to distinguish who is an atheist and who is an agnostic, which would mean we would still have to explain his position (something that should be done anyway); if we keep the lists separate but in the same article, he'd be listed under both sections, and that would be a waste of effort anyway. All I see in merging the two is problems with classification and confusion.
 * It might be worth creating a list of nontheists though, to list people who have not identified either way but have said they do not believe in God. ~  Swi tch t 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

An atheist like myself sees little difference between atheists and agnostics. But I think some religious people se it differently. I think that (to some degree) agnostics are just atheists who are afraid of offending people. An atheist will come right out and tell you that your religion is nothing but a myth, but agnostics try to be a little more uncertain. Therefore, atheists piss off religious people much more than agnostics. To some religious people, an atheist is somebody who has been completely deceived by Satan, but an agnostic can still be "saved". People who don't believe in this hooey see little difference between the two classifications, but the difference is rather major to some people. What I am getting at is that these articles should probably remain separate, and not just out of fear of offending the fundies. There are many more agnostics than atheists, and the shortness of the agnostic list is merely due to incompleteness. Famous people who publicly describe themselves as atheists are a rare breed (at least in the U.S.) and deserve their own list. -- Big Brother 1984 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Atheist means different things to different people. The definition for the word is actually a lot more fluid and contentious than the definition of agnostic. For that reason, and because of WP:BLP (as was mentioned earlier), I maintain that the primary criterion for inclusion here ought to remain self-identification.


 * Some believe that atheism is just lack of belief in deities, while others believe it is outright denial of the existence of deities, or even denial of the possibility of the existence of deities. Some believe agnosticism is a subset of atheism, while others believe the two are distinct categories, while still others believe that there is some overlap. It all depends on what definitions one uses, and there is no one authority on which Wikipedia can rely to settle the issue. All of these beliefs about the true definitions of atheist and agnostic are specific points of view. To accept one and reject the others advances a point of view, which would violated WP:NPOV.


 * I don't believe entries such as Bertrand Russell are problematic, because his viewpoint is clearly explained in footnotes on both lists. I believe List of agnostics is probably a lot shorter than list of atheists because agnostic is an identity that reached its peak of popularity in the 1800s. Since then, some destigmatization and liberalization of the popular meaning of the word atheist has led to its use by more and more people.


 * I do not object to creation of a List of nontheists. The meaning for that word is pretty uncontroversial. All atheists would fall within its scope, though not all agnostics (some agnostics do believe in a deity, even if they say they do not know its nature, or that it exists). Nick Graves 22:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Big Brother 1984 hit the nail on the head by saying that those who can be identified as atheists by reliable sources should have their own list. Agnosticism and atheism aren't exactly the same thing and should be treated separately. For what it's worth, I personally take the same line as Russell (and Asimov), and don't find it at all problematic. I can't prove the non-existence of god any more than a theist can prove the existence of god; but being against the very idea of gods, I call myself atheist so people are in no doubt. Call it being an 'intellectual agnostic' but a 'gut atheist' (Big Brother, I might add however that I have theist friends who still don't see that as a reason to give up entirely on me, and now and then I feel constrained to remind them that it's a losing battle...!) BTW, I also have no objection to the all-encompassing 'nontheists' list. Cheers, Ian Rose 22:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I likewise second — "third"? — the motion to start a "List of nontheists." logologist|Talk 09:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nick Mason
--Nick Mason, Pink Floyd's drummer, is also an atheist. In an interview in 1995 to the British Magazine Q, he said: "No. I don't believe in God. I believe in God Dylan" (unsigned)
 * Someone who doesn't believe in God might or might not identify as an atheist. Nick Graves 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should recheck the definition of atheist before you start to comment on it's discussion page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.56.36.253 (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Darwin?
what about Darwin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.43.243 (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC).


 * What about him? Find a reliable source for his atheism and he'll be more than welcome... Cheers, Ian Rose 11:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe many biographical authors has labelled Darwin as an atheist based on his views. Although this line (and a lot similar) can be retrieved from Charles Darwin's views on religion: "In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that he did 'not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation', but was always insistent that he was agnostic and had 'never been an atheist'". Btw, today's Feb. 12, Darwin Day. -ramz- 14:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Darwin was a Christian because that's what his parents taught him to be. Later in his life, after he had proposed the theory of Darwinian evolution he lost his faith and became an atheist. But he never dared to say this because his wife would choose to be offended if he did.--80.56.36.253 09:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is, he never said he was an atheist, in fact he denied it steadfastly, but you reckon he secretly was so let's just include hm anyway... yes? ~  Swi tch  t c   g 13:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Darwin was an atheist. Although he called himself an agnostic, he was an atheists. I am an atheist but on several occasions I called myself an agnostic!
 * 99% Agnostics are just politically correct atheists. There are very very few people who call themselves "agnostics" believe in God.
 * User:devraj

I am removing Joseph Stalin
Joseph Stalin was a monster. How can anybody put him together with people like Linus Pauling? Joseph Stalin killed millions in the name of communism. Thus, it would be wrong to blame atheism for the killing of those innocent people. Stalin should not be listed for moral reason. And it is not clear whether he was an atheist or not. According to Stalin's bodyguard (quoted on a TV series) Stalin had something of a relapse from atheism during the war and used to pray in the Kremlin chapel. I am removing Stalin from the list. If I see the name of Stalin again, I will remove it! User:devraj5000
 * Devraj, part of the deal working on this project is that personal feelings should not interfere with the creation of an encyclopedia. You think Stalin was a monster? Guess what, you're not alone. That has no bearing on his appearance in this list, nor does your concern that readers will blame his murderous rule on atheism. As you've been informed by other editors, one bodybuard quoted in an unnamed TV series does not negate self identification that is clearly cited. Unless you can present better evidence refuting his atheism, free of any baggage about his humanity or lack thereof, you are unlikely to win your argument. Cheers, Ian Rose 09:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. And thanks for removing the photo of Stalin.User:devraj5000


 * I would love to see a source regarding Stalin turning back to theism. For now, he is an atheist. mirageinred 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Narrowest sense of the word?
From the article: "With few exceptions, only those who have called themselves "atheists" are listed. Others may be listed if identified as such by informed and impartial sources, or if they fit the narrowest sense of the word atheist (they have denied the existence of God and other deities)."

How confusing. The normal definition of an atheist is 'someone who does not believe in the existence of god(s)'. The narrower definition (strong atheism) is 'someone who believes god(s) do not exist'. The above (denied the existence of God and other deities) is clearly weak atheism, not strong. The broad definition, not the narrow.

If all people who 'have denied the existence of God and other deties' are included (which, incidently, would be fine with me, but does not seem to be the policy here) people such as Einstein and Jefferson should be included as well. Diadem 17:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation of the word deny. As wiktionary shows, denying the existence of deities would entail either not allowing for them to exist (strong atheism), or asserting that they do not (strong again). ~  Swi tch  t c   g 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)\
 * All those that lack a belief in deities should be included. That includes pantheists like Einstein.--80.56.36.253 09:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? ~  Swi tch  t c   g 13:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because that's his opinion, and my opinion is that you are doing things right, include people who either self-identify, including people like Russell with appropriate explanations. This is a very good list, near Featured List quality, don't ruin it by getting side-tracked, rely on sources and primarily what label people themselves use. In short, keep up the good work :) --Merzul 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because they fulfill the definition of the term they are to be listed under. Atheists are people that lack the belief or have disbelief in deities/gods. Otherwise change the name of the list to 'outspoken atheists' or 'self-identified atheists'.--80.56.36.253 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Pietro Acciarito
We don't seem to have a suitable section for Pietro Acciarito, a blacksmith whose notability is owed solely to the fact that he failed to assassinate King Umberto I of Italy. He later said he would just as soon have " stuck that old monkey the Pope (Leo XIII.) " (Vizetelly, The Anarchists: Their Faith and Their Record, the source which identifies him as definitely... an atheist). I've put him in "Activists and educators" for the time being, but he doesn't really fit there. I also considered "Politics and law" but that seemed even less appropriate. Thoughts? ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  05:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question. How about a Loonies section?! Cheers, Ian Rose 11:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mao?
Um...shouldn't Mao Zedong be on the list of politicians? One would think him important enough to include in such a list. Not that I'm accusing anyone of deliberately leaving him out... Corbmobile 10:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You'd think Enver Hoxha would fit even more than Mao, but I'm guessing they want a limit on "bad-guy atheists." Just like List of Christians has only 3 Nazis.--T. Anthony 08:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Having many bad guys in the list is not a good idea.
 * Devraj5000


 * Acknowledging that some dictators/one-party-state leaders were atheists does not say that atheism is bad or that atheists are bad. None of these "by belief" lists is exclusively nice people. Look at some names in List of Baptists, List of Buddhists, List of convicted or indicted religious leaders, Lists of Hindus, List of Latter Day Saints, List of Muslim soldiers, etc. List of Bahá'ís and List of Jains are about the only ones without criminals or dictators.--T. Anthony 09:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Come now, guys, there's no conspiracy I'm aware of to put 'good guys' or 'bad guys' in this list, only atheists. Personally I agree with the capsule assessment of Mao as a 'bad guy' (and Stalin, and Mussolini) but that has nothing to do with whether he gets into this list or not. Present a solid citation of his atheism and he's in. Present it not, and he's out. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Modifying intro to include the rejection of either monotheism or theism
I would like some concensus as to whether or not we should change: "An atheist is one who disbelieves[1] in the existence of any deities." to "An atheist is one who disbelieves[1] in the existence of a deity or deities."

I propose this modification on the grounds this wording is more consistent with definitions which refer to a denial of God or gods. This is because one can either reject just a single God (monotheism) or both God and gods (theism). With either case, the persons are considered atheists.Modocc 23:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll start the ball rolling, FWIW. For once, I'm a fence-sitter - not particularly fussed with either wording... Cheers, Ian Rose 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Logically, "one who disbelieves in the existence of (a) deity" would seem to cover all possible cases, singular, plural, and abstract. logologist|Talk 08:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Grammatically,a reading of "of deity" is best placed within a context, even within an abstract context, and since such context should be supplied retrospectively, and by its usage, its not needed in the definition. The “(a) deity” is also an awkward construction. Also, the plural case is not explicit, and I am not even sure how its inferred here, thus no doubt other readers will wonder too.Modocc 14:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Buddha
The Buddha denied the existence of a Creator God :

If the creator of the world entire

They call God, of every being be the Lord

Why does he order such misfortune

And not create concord?

If the creator of the world entire

They call God, of every being be the Lord

Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance

And he such inequity and injustice create?

If the creator of the world entire

They call God, of every being be the Lord

Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)

Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!

Any opinions on adding the Buddha? Arrow740 06:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that the philosophy of Buddhism is more or less atheist, I say he should be included. The only problem arise when you name Buddhism as a religion, the problem does although seem to be only semantical. -ramz- 01:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the Buddha or boddhisatvas. If the Buddha either explicitly denied the existence of gods, or tacitly left them out of his belief system, it seems to me he would qualify as an atheist under an inclusive construction.  An alternative might be to set him up as a charter member of a "List of nontheists."  logologist|Talk 02:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Additions
Added Georg Chirstof Lichtenberg, John Leslie Mackie and Voltaire. Voltaire is -admittedly- problematic. He openly denounced religion, spefically Christianity, but since he would have faced the death-sentence for calling himself an atheist, he called himself a deist. Many a quote of his is implicitly stating his atheism. Since there is no doubt that Voltaire was a rationalist, accepting only what reason can verify, the following quote practically proves his atheism: "Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense." [Philosophical Dictionary, 1764]

here are some more:

"Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror."

"Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world."

"Superstition, born of paganism and adopted by Judaism, invested the Christian Church from earliest times. All the fathers of the Church, without exception, believed in the power of magic. The Church always condemned magic, but she always believed in it: she did not excommunicate sorcerers as madmen who were mistaken, but as men who were really in communication with the devil." [Philosophical Dictionary, 1764]

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." 84.56.127.123 13:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)MikeB


 * Tks for coming to the talk page to discuss. I don't know that Voltaire quite cuts the mustard by the fairly strict criteria applied here, despite the implications of those quotes, but let's see what others think as well. In any case these additions need to be cited in the same fashion as all other entries or risk quick removal. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply. I have edited the additions by citing references, if you find mistakes, please post it here. One more thing: What do you (question directed at all) think of adding B.F. Skinner, David Hume, Robert Heinlein, George Orwell and Mark Twain ? 84.56.127.123 13:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)MikeB
 * I think it's a great idea, provided you can cite sources for each entry.
 * I think Voltaire should be excluded though. He identified as a deist and in my opinion explicit identifications trump implicit ones, even in the face of persecution. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone put a gun to my head and demanded that I say I like Pop music or he'd shoot me, I'd do so, even though I despise 99.999% of pop music. So I don't know if such a statement trumps everything. How about listing him while stating that there is controversy over his "true" beliefs or lack thereof, since many a quote of his will strongly imply atheism but stand in contrast to his claim of being a deist which was made under fear of persecution and execution. So, basically, what I'm saying is - how about keeping him but explicitly telling the reader about the controversy, and leaving it to him to decide - having given the quotes as well as the statement. ?
 * 84.56.67.46 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC) MikeB
 * Sounds reasonable. Nihil novi 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed the entry accordingly - have a look and tell me what you think. 84.56.67.46 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC) MikeB
 * I like it; I hope others will too. I've made a few phrasing edits — please feel free to revert them if they distort your views.  Nihil novi 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I think those phrasing edits made it more intelligible. So, thanks! I, too hope that others will like it. That reminds me... much the same that is true about Voltaire is also true about David Hume, so I think the same policy should be adoped concerning him, but let's wait and see what others think about including Voltaire in this fashion. Again, thanks! 84.56.67.46 23:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC) MikeB
 * Mike and Nihil, appreciate the time taken with your work on Voltaire but I'm afraid I haven't changed my opinion on his inclusion. After much discussion over time we've agreed inclusion criteria for this page which I think cannot admit him, despite the implications of his public utterances. The page is a list of atheists, not supposed or implied athiests. Again, I'll await some further discussion but my colleague Logologist suggested a "List of nontheists" in relation to Buddha - perhaps that's a home for Voltaire and Hume... Cheers, Ian Rose 09:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's time for a list of nontheists. As for Voltaire, he's still considered a deist. If there is a professionally-written piece on Voltaire which discusses the possibility of his nontheism or atheism, he can be included in the nontheists list as a contentious entry. But including him here on the basis of implications of what he said is OR unless someone has published it. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll delete him, seems reasonable to create a list of non-theists. But I have to say that "he is still considered a deist" is not quite true. Not a small part of my collegues (philosophy-students) and professors consider him to be a "closet atheist"... so the generalisation "he is considered" isn't true. Voltaire's deism is of the kind that denies any involvement of god or tenability of religion and theism - he is definitly a MUST for a non-theists list, not only because of that, but because deism is definitly not theism and actually opposed to theism. Anyways - I will add B.F. Skinner, citing a CBS interview with him shortly before his death in which he answered the question whether he's afraid of dying with "I don't believe in God, so I'm not afraid of dying." and of course George H. Smith, author of "Atheism - The case against god". I would like to hear your opinion on adding Ernest Hemingway, citing his statement that "All thinking men are atheists", as well as on adding George Orwell, referencing to Crick's biography, which calls him an atheist and Vincent Van Gogh, citing his statement "I can very well do without God both in my life and in my painting, but I cannot, suffering as I am, do without something which is greater than I am, which is my life, the power to create." and on Democritus, for his philosophy of self-sufficient and self-contained materialism. I will make the additions I said I would do anyway because Skinner and Smith are very clearly atheists within the next 24 h, and await your input on the other ones.
 * Regards, -MikeB 84.56.67.46 14:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the important thing to consider is the criteria that have been set for inclusion in this list - namely, either explicitly identifying as an atheist or making assertions of strong atheism. This is important because atheist is potentially a pejorative (ugh) and we must be careful not to violate WP:BLP.
 * If you can source any of this, it would be wonderful (Especially the Van Gogh statement which, uniquely, I hadn't actually heard before). I don't think there is much contention on Orwell's case. Hemingway is still contentious - It is a character's statement in his work, not his own - but I would not be surprised if a better quote an be found. I'm not sure materialists are necessarily atheists (depending on definition), but are definitely nontheists. Van Gogh and Skinner are nontheists at least, but neither quote is explicitly atheist. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  07:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Brooker
Charlie Brooker should be on here. He's an atheist and has said so on quite a few occasions. User:Jbeckwith
 * Find a solid quote and cite it, and he's more than welcome... Cheers, Ian Rose 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

List of nontheists
Well, I made the list of nontheists at last. I thought all the talking about it implied that consensus was achieved. It's small at current, but it will grow. Any additions, of course, are welcome. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC) I don't have access to the resources I'd like just at the moment, but I believe Einstein, Skinner, Van Gogh, Edison and possibly Voltaire (if a source disussing his religious views can be provided) should be added. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  16:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I feel that list is a good addition to Wikipedia. I agree with adding Einstein, Skinner, Edison, Van Gogh and Voltaire. I'll see to it that I find a book discussing Voltaire's beliefs - if I myself don't find one, I'll just ask one of my professors. Maybe one should mention that some of the listed people might be atheists (or deists), but that since there is no consensus about their status, they are listed as nontheists.84.56.94.56 03:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC) MikeB
 * The List of nontheists fills a previously felt gap. The proviso about potential atheists or deists would indeed be worth stating.  Nice article!  Nihil novi 03:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Mr. Switch, It seems to me that you don't understand anything about atheism! Atheists are those people who do not believe in God. Some atheists do not believe in the existence of God and some simply lack faith in God. Gautama Buddha, Steven Weinberg, Andrew Carnegie and others are all atheists. And they are also "nontheists". If you want to create "List of nontheists" or whatever, then add names such as Einstein. User:devraj
 * Please see above and Talk:Atheism for the extensive discussions on the scope of the word atheism. Just as we wouldn't call George W. Bush a fascist or Ralph Nader a communist, we wouldn't call Carnegie an atheist, because they are potentially pejoratives. See WP:BLP. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Atheists are people who do not believe in a god or gods (or other immaterial beings), or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful. Some atheists put it more firmly and believe that god or gods do not exist. One does not need to say "I'm an atheist" to be an atheist.
 * This is the reason why Gautama Buddha, Steven Weinberg, Andrew Carnegie and others are all atheists!
 * During the time of Buddha, the word "atheism" did not existed. And Dr Weinberg is an atheist. And by the way Mr Switch, do you know anything about Theoretical Physics? Well, I know. I know how physicists think and I know that Dr. Weinberg is an atheist.
 * And please do not delete the name. First discuss.User:devraj


 * I know a little about theoretical physics - enough not to capitalise it for a start. I'm a writer with a fairly broad knowledge of science. I'm going to get my B.Sc. if I can ever afford it. I have actually done work as a scientific journalist for a local paper. I do not work in the field, but I have acquaintances who do. Yes, all of them are atheists - using my definition. A few prefer to be called agnostic.
 * While I agree with your definition of atheism, many people do not. In religious societies (including the United States), atheist can be a pejorative. Because of the issues outlined in WP:BLP, we should not label people atheists if they do not identify as one themselves or are are not certainly atheists (that is, atheists using the narrowest sense of the word).
 * We do however disagree on one point. I believe atheism refers only to (dis-)belief in deities, not only other immaterial beings. One can be an atheist and still believe in, just say, souls (viz Terry Pratchett).
 * The problem is, your definition and my definition are not universal (see Atheism). Not everyone who does not believe in deities is an atheist - some would steadfastly deny it.
 * Gautama Buddha, Steven Weinberg, Andrew Carnegie and others are not necessarily atheists, depending on the definition. In Weinberg's case especially, it would be against Wikipedia policy to call him an atheist without stronger evidence he considers himself one. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  06:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... just out of curiosity: How are we to apply Wiki-policy if/when a person calls him/herself an atheist without even fitting the narrowest sense of the word? - And if the decision should be that we are not to call them atheists - doesn't that imply that applying the term atheist to oneself isn't a sufficient nor a neccesarry criterion? Btw, the philosopher Richard Rorty describes himself as being an atheist (and implying by that being an anti-mysticist per his own definition), and his philosophical works certainly fortify that statement; so I suggest adding him. The reference is his acceptance-speech for the German Meister Eckard-Preis. Even Ernst Tugendhat - one of the most renowned and prominent German philosophers of the 20th and 21st century - acknowledges that specifically. Regards, 84.56.99.132 00:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC) MikeB
 * Why not add him to the list, with citations? Nihil novi 01:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If a person identifies as an atheist (and is notable enough to warrant an article) they belong on this list, regardless of their own beliefs about deities and the word atheism. They can claim to believe in any and all gods they like, but if they identify themselves as atheists, they should be listed. It is only in the case that a person does not use words like atheist, agnostic, bright, etc. that it is permissible for editors to make the call. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  07:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have a background in Physics and Business. Well, brother, I don't know what to say.

You Say,"In religious societies (including the United States), atheist can be a pejorative. Because of the issues outlined in WP:BLP, we should not label people atheists if they do not identify as one themselves or are are not certainly atheists (that is, atheists using the narrowest sense of the word)."

I don't know what to say.

In our Hindu culture, both atheists and agnostics are considered as "NASTIK". Anyone who does not believe in a God or Gods is a nastik.

And in our culture it is possible to be both an atheist and a Hindu (You do not have to be a believer to be a Hindu and lot of people in the west do not understand it.) !! Well, some hindus do not consider nastik as good people.

In fact, I see little difference between atheists, agnostics and nontheists. They are all considered as nastik.

And I do not understand why people in the West use terms like "agnostic", "bright", "nontheists", "humanist", etc. Those people who do not believe in God and call themselves "agnostics", "brights", "nontheists", "humanists", etc are all "politically correct atheists"!!!!

Those agnostics who believe in God should simply call themselves "believer". And I think 90-95% agnostics are just politically correct atheists and they do not believe in God.

Gautama Buddha did not believe in God, thus he was a nastik (meaning atheist)! So, I think he should be added in the list of atheists.

And Dr. Weinberg also does not believe in God. If you ask Dr Weinberg "Are you an atheists?" I am 100% sure he would say "yes!". I think we should at least add Dr. Weinberg in the list of atheists.

He once said: "I don't believe in God... the god of traditional Judaism and Christianity and Islam seems to me a terrible character. He's a god who... obsessed the degree to which people worship him and anxious to punish with the most awful torments those who didn't worship him in the right way."

Now that is definitive. He is an atheist. 100% atheist. And he has never said that "I am an agnostic" or anything bad about atheism. His name should be added in the list of atheists.

I am not going to add any name. And, I would love to know what others have to say.

User:devraj


 * I think we've been over this. Not everyone who does not believe in deities is an atheist; even more so, not everyone who does not believe in the Abramic God is an atheist. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  19:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The variety of names ("atheism," "agnosticism," "nontheism," etc.) for what is arguably at bottom a single concept, reminds me of the schisms within Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and other religions. It would be nice to fix on a single universally agreeable interpretation and name (I might opt for the neutral "nontheism") but perhaps we are doomed to tolerate the multiplicity. Nihil novi 23:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is time for a “List of nonbelievers”

Mr. Switch, you said “your definition and my definition (of atheism) are not universal.” Well, the problem is there is no universal definition of atheism!

According to my definition of atheism, Buddha, Carnegie, Weinberg, Einstein, Sagan and others are atheists (or nastik).

But you disagree with me in case of Buddha, Carnegie and Weinberg.

In case of Einstein, although he did not believed in deities, he did not consider himself an atheist.

In case of Sagan, although he did not believed in deities, he called himself an agnostic.

I think we should create a “List of nonbelievers”. All atheists, almost all agnostics (over 90%), bright, humanists (those who do not believe in God) and other nonbelievers should be included in the list.

I think the list would be great.

User:devraj


 * "And in our culture it is possible to be both an atheist and a Hindu." Oh really. Hindus have to accept some of the Hindu scriptures, and even the Upanishads are full of Lord this and Purusha that. That's why when Shankara tried to give a Buddhist interpretation to them he still couldn't interpret Ishvar away. Arrow740 07:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism is a way of life, not just a religion. I do not believe in any Hindu scriptures. I am a non-religious hindu and a hard atheist. Although many hindus believe in gods, some are atheists.

User:devraj

Look, for many educated Hindus (especially those who have BSc/MSc/Ph.D in natural sciences), Hinduism has no meaning except for certain ceremonies, which are performed without religious faith. Upanishads and other "hindu stories" were written at a time when humans knew nothing about natural sciences. How can a rational person believe in those fairy tales in 21st century?

User:devraj

If a "List of nonbelievers" is established, how are we to avoid ambiguity as to what it is the "nonbelievers" do not believe in? To be sure, the same could be asked about "agnostics" (those who "do not know"). Nihil novi 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the "List of non-believers" will be as controversial as the "List of atheists". Although I am not convinced that Buddha, Weinberg and others should not be in the "List of atheists", I do not want further discussion. And I don't think that the "List of nontheists" is bad either.

And SwitChar, where are you brother? You wrote that you are completing a BSc. I hope that you complete your BSc and I really hope that you do well in your life. Best of luck, brother. Well, I have a Master's degree (MSc) in Physics. I am young and enjoying life.

User:devraj


 * I'm going to play tricky word games, Devraj, to explain the state of the lists. I know English is not your first language, but I believe you'll keep up.
 * While there is not a universal definition of atheism, there is a group of people everyone agrees are atheists - those who make the positive assertion that gods do not exist (see the George Carlin quote). by every definition, these people are atheists. This list includes people who are definitely atheists by their own opinion and popular opinion - people must either a) say they are atheists or b) make the positive assertion that deities do not exist to be listed here. It is the only way to ensure that their listing will not be contested. This does have its problems though.
 * In response to these problems, you requested an all-encompassing list of nonbelievers - actually, this list already exists! If you look above, you will see that for some time we have been discussing a list of nontheists, which is the same thing. However, a list of all nontheists would simply be too large, and it would need to be split off into smaller sub-lists - such as list of agnostics, list of brights, list of atheists, list of humanists, et cetera. See the list of Christians for a similar organisational method - the list is divided into smaller lists of specific types of Christians, but those whom do not fit easily into any of the sub-lists are still listed at the main list only.
 * While we reached this method of organisation differently than described above, the lists are still organised the same way. The list of nontheists lists people without belief in deities, and provides links to the other lists - nontheists who call themselves (or meet the strictest definition of) atheists, agnostics etc.
 * Are we in agreement that this is a good way to organise the lists?
 * (PS - I know some atheist Hindus. Nice people too.)
 * (PPS - I'm not currently studying for a B.Sc., but I would really like to. The sciences were my best subjects in school, and I love studying physics in particular. I was accepted into Physics at RMIT University a while ago, but it just didn't work out. I am determined to eventually earn the award though.)
 * (PPPS - I agree with you that, like Isaac Asimov, most people who refuse the label of atheist are merely being "politically correct", or at least something approaching it. Wikipedia has to adhere to a strict neutral point of view policy though.) ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand what you are trying to say. Now, we should end the discussion.
 * User:devraj

Albert Einstein
I have added Albert Einstein in the List of nontheists. Einstein was a great physicist and he is one of my idols. I am delighted to add his name in the List of nontheists.

User:Devraj5000

Now I think that Einstein’s name should not be in the list. Although Einstein did not believe in a personal God, he did not consider himself an atheist. Einstein considered himself neither an atheist nor a believer. I do not think Einstein would have been comfortable if anyone would have called him a nontheists.

User:Devraj5000

Richard Rorty
I've added Rorty, and linked to his acceptance speech - which is in German. Note that him having "called [him]self an atheist on occasion" does not that he has changed his mind. He notes elsewhere that he is of the opinion that nothing should be treated as a god or a quasi-god, and in his acceptance speech he states that he probably should have called himself an anti-clericalist and/or secularist instead of an atheist, because he wants to stress that he thinks that institutionalized religion is outright dangerous and that religion ought to be an entirely private matter with no aspirations for universality. He says - while discussing the clash between science and religion at the end of the 19th century, and it being a good thing that science won the fight - that "if you want truth, the actual combination of science and common sense is all you need" (and that religion ought only to have the function to privately make you feel better). If you look at his philosophy, it becomes clear that his philosophical pragmatism combined with his metaphysical reductionism exclude the possibility of any deity in his personal world-view. He is not opposed to religion where it is strictly a matter of private belief, but from his works and speeches it becomes clear that he himself has no need for religion and belief in deities in general. Actually, consequent philosophical pragmatism (and I say this as a student of philosophy) doesn't allow for metaphysical stipulation, and therefore neither for deities. I move that Rorty should be kept on this list, but also added to a future list of secularists or anti-clericalists. Regards, 84.56.74.250 04:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC) MikeB
 * And to a "List of nonbelievers." Nihil novi 03:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC

atheist Capitalized?
I came to this article and saw atheist uncapitalized, and yet when I visited List of christians it even had a redirect to be sure that "christian" was capitalized. Why are theists given special capitalization and not Atheists? Just a thought. CrimsonSun99 04:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. Could it be due to "atheism" being an abstract concept, while "Christian" is thought of as being derived from what is commonly (perhaps not quite correctly) regarded as a proper noun, "Christ"?  Also, there is some variability in capitalization usage; some people, for example, capitalize "communism," others don't.  Nihil novi 06:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding communism, it is grammatically correct to capitalise when referring to an organisation which is named "Communist" or an individual affiliated with such an organisation. For example, the USSR was Communist because it was governed by a Communist Party, and a member of (just say) the Communist League is a Communist. But someone who just happens to be a communist is not necessarily a Communist... this is discussed more clearly in the communism article. Similar distinctions apply to Christianity and atheism, essentially for the reasons provided by Nihil Novi. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  15:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity atheists
this is a good website with celebrity atheists Dwanyewest 15:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jamie Hyneman
I think Hyneman is more of an agnostic than an atheist. That quote says "I'm pretty adamant about the whole god thing... It seems that skeptics are by and large atheists, or something approaching that, which I strongly identify with. ... I've become enthusiastically part of [the skeptical movement]." He says 'atheists or something approaching that'. I myself am a skeptic, but I don't consider myself as an atheist for instance. Sorry for the edit, but I forgot to log in. Cruiserweight 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He says he's adamant about the whole god thing, not wishy-washy about it. He also says he "strongly identifies" with atheism, so what's the problem? 32.97.110.142 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agnostics are wishy-washy? Brilliant...  JHMM13  05:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Natalie Angier
I have added Natalie Angier in the list. She is an American science journalist and she won the Pulitzer Prize in 1991. User:Devraj5000

Stephen Hawking
I am adding the name of Stephen Hawking. In the book “Music to Move the Stars : My Life with Stephen Hawking”, Jane Hawking (former wife of Stephen Hawking) has mentioned that Stephen’s firm atheism would often clash with Jane's Christian faith.

User:Devraj5000

Michael Kinsley
Michael Kinsley (currently a columnist for Time magazine) identifies himself as an atheist in his review of Christopher Hitchens' "God is Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" book published May 13, 2007 in the New York Times, Sunday Book Review http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/books/review/Kinsley-t.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=books where he wrote:

"Although Hitchens’s title refers to God, his real energy is in the subtitle: “religion poisons everything.” Disproving the existence of God (at least to his own satisfaction and, frankly, to mine) is just the beginning for Hitchens..."

New Organization & Neil Peart
I think that the List of Atheists page should be organized the same way as the List of Agnostics page. The List of Atheists page should have all of the atheists' names in alphabetical order, with a short description of what they are famous for beside their name. Also, I think that Neil Peart should be added to the List of Atheists. The song on Snakes and Arrows, Faithless, seems to say that he is an Atheist. Does anyone agree? 74.100.0.150 23:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you start at the top of the page here, you'll see that a long and at times heated discussion was had not too long ago on the subject of structure. Personally I remain happy with the way it is but of course it's always open to review if you're game. Re. Neil Peart, lyrics from one song that imply atheism don't meet the criteria for inclusion here. You would need something more explicit outside the artistic context, for instance an assertion of atheism in an interview. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Benito Mussolini
I thought Benito Mussolini was an atheist based on his article's references. Was I mistaken in some way? --Onias 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is very biased. Professor John Pollard is a religious person and he is trying to give a bad name to atheism by calling Mussolini an atheist! Mussolini was NOT an atheist! User:Devraj5000


 * Alright, cool your jets, I just want to keep things as fair as possible. Did you check out Mussolini's talk page? The section about religion? No need to jump to conclusions because you're passionate about your beliefs. --Onias 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Leonard Susskind
I have added the name of Leonard Susskind in the list. He was one of the founding fathers of Superstring theory and a great theoretical physicist. I am delighted to add his name in the list. He is the only Superstring theorist in the List of atheists. This will surely make the list even greater! Now we have so many great scientists in the list!! Yes!!!

User:Devraj5000

Proposed merger
Someone has proposed that List of nontheists be merged with List of atheists. I have expressed my disagreement with this proposal on that article's talk page. Nick Graves 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. A nontheist is someone who (passively) does not believe in a god; an atheist is someone who (actively) disbelieves in any god.  All people are born nontheists, but most people become theists (ie: over time, join a religion -- usually, their parents' religion.)  Chip Unicorn 17:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe nontheist is something of a blanket term used in nations where theists are a majority. If I understand it right a nontheist may believe in some kind of "cosmic plan" or "life force" while rejecting a deity. Although I can see why merger was proposed. The list of nontheists, at present, is just a list of atheists. In order to differentiate itself from this list the nontheist list it should have people more like Stephen Batchelor, Wang Fuzhi, Ajita Kesakambali, Ursula K. Le Guin, Eugenie Scott (calls herself nontheist), and Sherwin Wine.--T. Anthony 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * List of nontheists is not just a list of atheists. It is a list of people who do not believe in God who have not aligned themselves with a specific form of nontheism. Whether they are atheists depends on what sort of definition for the word one chooses to use. Nick Graves 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood me I fear. A list of nontheists, in concept, is not just a list of atheists. However the actual list is a bit dominant by people who'd just describe as atheists or in a couple cases agnostic.--T. Anthony 06:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we both have misunderstood. After reading your response, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you proposing that most of the people at List of nontheists ought also to be included in List of atheists, with a couple cases also included in List of agnostics? Are you proposing that entries at List of atheists and List of agnostics ought to be included in List of nontheists? Nick Graves 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On consideration I guess I'd propose list of nontheists be for people who


 * 1) Call themselves nontheists, but don't call themselves atheist, deist, bright, or agnostic.
 * 2) Say they don't believe in God, but haven't ever referred to themselves as atheist, deist, bright, or agnostic.
 * 3) Are a member of nontheism philosophies that don't have their own lists like Ignosticism and Apatheism.--T. Anthony 20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * T. Anthony, that sounds like an excellent proposal to me. Nick Graves 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please See: Talk:List of nontheists. User:Devraj5000

The father of modern computer science is in the List of atheists!!
I am have added the name of Alan Turing in the List of atheists. Yes! He is considered as the father of modern computer science! Great! User:Devraj5000
 * Thanks for finding those references. An excellent addition. Nick Graves 16:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)